Eastwood v. Superior Court
149 Cal.App.3d 409 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The unauthorized use of a celebrity's name and likeness on the cover of a publication to promote sales, in connection with an article that constitutes a knowing or reckless falsehood, is not protected as a 'news account' and is actionable as a commercial appropriation of the right of publicity.
Facts:
- Clint Eastwood is a well-known motion picture actor.
- The National Enquirer, a weekly newspaper, published an issue with the pictures of Eastwood and singer Tanya Tucker on the cover above the caption 'Clint Eastwood in Love Triangle with Tanya Tucker.'
- The issue contained a 600-word article detailing a purported romantic involvement between Eastwood, Tucker, and actress Sondra Locke.
- Eastwood alleges the entire story about the love triangle is false.
- The Enquirer used Eastwood's name and photograph on the cover and in television advertisements to promote sales of that specific issue.
- Eastwood did not consent to the use of his name, photograph, or likeness for these purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- Clint Eastwood filed a complaint against National Enquirer, Inc. in a California trial court, which included a second cause of action for commercial appropriation.
- The Enquirer filed a general demurrer to the second cause of action, arguing it failed to state a valid claim.
- The trial court sustained the Enquirer's demurrer without leave to amend, effectively dismissing the commercial appropriation claim.
- Eastwood (petitioner) sought a writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to vacate its order and allow him to amend his complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unauthorized use of a celebrity's name and likeness on the cover of a publication and in related advertisements, in connection with a published article that is knowingly or recklessly false, constitute an actionable commercial appropriation of the right of publicity under common law and California Civil Code § 3344?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
Yes. The unauthorized use of a celebrity's identity in connection with a knowingly or recklessly false story constitutes actionable commercial appropriation. While the publication of news about public figures is constitutionally protected and statutorily exempt from right of publicity claims, this protection does not extend to calculated falsehoods. The court reasoned that the Enquirer's use of Eastwood's fame on its cover and in advertisements was a commercial exploitation designed to attract consumer attention and motivate purchases. The statutory exemption for 'news' under Civil Code § 3344(d) was not intended to shield a publication from liability for disseminating a story it knows is false or recklessly disregards the truth of. Such a deliberate fictionalization, when presented as fact with the requisite scienter (actual malice), is not protected by the First Amendment and becomes an actionable subterfuge for commercial exploitation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that the 'news account' exemption in right of publicity law is not absolute. It imports the 'actual malice' standard from defamation law (New York Times v. Sullivan) into the analysis of commercial appropriation claims that involve false reporting. The decision prevents publications from fabricating stories about celebrities to drive sales and then hiding behind the First Amendment or news exemptions. It strengthens a celebrity's right of publicity by clarifying that this right can be infringed even by a news-style article if the article is a knowing or reckless falsehood designed for commercial gain.
Unlock the full brief for Eastwood v. Superior Court